Talk:Multivitamin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 This reads like medical literature - where is the history?
2 No criticism
3 'time release' niacin?
4 Needs studies
5 Multivitamin (with iron) use & prostate cancer
6 Proper usage & studies' scope
7 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus

[edit] This reads like medical literature - where is the history?

I believe this article should contain content on the history of multivitamins: invention, development, production, anthropological/sociological histories, etc. I think this encyclopedia entry should include relationships to other topics, people, times. --76.211.245.65 (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No criticism

have there been no criticisms of multivitamins i also agree with the preceding statement

I heard that vitamin supplements are not very efficient, according to a med student here in Norway... can anyone come with a statement to the efficiency of most over the counter multivitamins, preferably comparing them to other vitamin supplements. cKaL 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree. some form of criticism is needed. there was a video on cnn recently showing that multivitamins are not useful for healthy individuals if not harmful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zone (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'time release' niacin?

what is mean by "time release niacin, especially old versions over one hour" ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Substantiate (talk • contribs) 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Niacin is typically marketed in several forms, from pure, "instant release" niacin ([1]) to various degrees of time release. also see this discussion[2] The old slow("sustained") time release tablets, over 1 hour, are the type most frequently associated with problems, especially with alcoholics and advanced liver disease. New, "extended" or "intermediate release" forms (e.g. Enduracin and Niaspan), under one hour have been offered in the US to optimize the flushing and slow release side effects to improve compliance for HDL and dyslipidemia improvements.--TheNautilus 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs studies

This page should link to large, long-term, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies of the effect of specific commercially available multivitamin supplements on objective measures of intelligence, strength, endurance, disease, scholastic achievement, etc.

[edit] Multivitamin (with iron) use & prostate cancer

The current article looks like someone has naively swallowed all the advertising hype. These articles http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6657795.stm http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/10/754 http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/99/10/742 , on the other hand, show that using multivitamins increases the risk of death from cancer, because there is a narrow margin between a good dose or a harmful dose of vitamins. I used to think I was doing myself good from taking a multivitamin, but after carefully studying the second article I now no longer take any vitamin pills but just eat a varied diet. 80.2.221.47 20:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify.. the second article actually concludes that "These results suggest that regular multivitamin use is not associated with the risk of early or localized prostate cancer." It says that overuse (more than 7 times a week) can lead to higher risk of fatal prostate cancer. But many people use multiple supplements together, which could lead to a total of more than 7 supplements a week. They also found that supplements could decrease the risk of prostate cancer, but speed its progression once you have it. MangoJesusSuperstar 14:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have previously discussed this some[3]. This test was largely conducted with the 80s-90s era formulas before Centrum Silver became a commonplace "mainstream" iron-free mulitvitamin/multimineral supplement with other mainstream brands following over the last dozen (or fewer) years. Typical daily multivitamin formulas then had 16-30 mg iron, commonly 18 mg Fe, for a single daily dosage. The "More than seven times a week" category might be loosely interpreted as usually twice a day. As I showed previously[4], any (excess) iron was already considered a big no-no in prostate cancer. One tab with iron might be one too many for certain people. If you go to your drugstore and look at the current "50+ seniors'" and "male" multivitamin versions, they typically leave out the iron (0 mg) or cut it to about 4-9 mg Fe if they put any iron in at all. The "(fertile) female" formulas will typically still have 16-18 mg.--TheNautilus 11:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am moving the NCI study edit here as redundant (A&E) & narrow with undue weight on multivitamin formula issues that are also already dated, e.g. the Theragran-M formula[5] listed in the study used 27 mg iron per tablet(!), implying 54 mg iron per day or more for prostate cancer victims(!!!), before Thergaran-M formula's market shift ~2002 to 18 mg with the "Advanced formula".--TheNautilus (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Other criticism about the AJCN paper's flaws:[6]--TheNautilus (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper usage & studies' scope

Proper (multi)vitamin use is an individual affair for genetic, environmental, nutritional and health condition related reasons (there is a lot of overlap) as somewhat reflected in the differentiated product lines.

There are a number of nutrients that have very narrow ranges or significant subpopulations of concern.

Iron is another fairly common nutrient of morbid, even deadly, excess especially for HFE and other iron absorbing/conserving genes, non-anemic "mature" (50+) persons, males especially prostatic males and cancer cases.

Fluoride is one such mineral micronutrient. Never minding the tooth issue, its practical biochemical deficiency seems to be uncommon. Excess intake of F- beyond limits identified by EPA research, is not uncommon.

Marginal vitamin status or deficiencies may be further “crowded out” by other similar nutrients. In unbalanced usage, especially with larger quantities, synthetic betacarotene and all-racemic (synthetic) vitamin E^[7][8] have been shown to create measurable physicological differences or to displace other related natural isomers & analogs, e.g. the natural spectrum of carotenes and tocopherols that have also been shown to have biological significance in health as well as vitamin K.

Potentially inadequate vitamin K levels are associated with less familiar problems such as osteoporosis, arterial calcification, connective tissue disorders, cancer, as well as inadequate blood clotting. Vitamin K deficiency can be associated with antibiotics (over)use, malabsorption, and aggravated by aspirin, BHT, excess sugar as well as larger doses of vitamins A, D and E. Individual vitamin K supplement sizes range from ~100 mcg K₁ (very common) and 50 mcg K₂ (as MK-7) to 15,000 mcg (K₂ as MK-4), sometimes in combinations[9]. Vitamin K status is seldom assessed, especially on a graded basis, despite impressive work associating corrrective levels of vitamin K with amelioration and effective treatement of osteoporosis , cancer, and liver disease as well as bleeding problems (clot formation). Vitamin K is typically not in vitamin formulas outside of minor use in some female (and mature??) oriented formulas partly because of concerns about interferences with coumadin or heparin. The key to vitamin K use with these latter medicines is *consistency and monitoring*. I will note that in the orthomolecular & nutritionally oriented medical world that one might not use "high voltage" blood thinners until exhausting other modalities for various sources of bllod problems such as fibrin (niacin for fibrinogen formation; systemic serrapeptase, nattokinase or lumbrokinase use for fibrin clot degradation) and mixed tocopherols (including high gamma tocopherols, "natural vitamin E").

vitamin A nutrient interactions medical interactions
vitamin D nutrient interactions medical interactions
vitamin E nutrient interactions medical interactions
vitamin K nutrient interactions medical interactions

If a study with sweeping statements does not systematically address (exclude or treat) these long known variables and problems, it is an incomplete study that should be weighted accordingly and augmented by other, more informed sources.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that opinion is a POV and is based upon your selected evidence. If a study has been published in a peer-reviewed journal it qualifies under WP:SOURCES. That said, I concur that this has to be balanced with WP:DUE.Vitaminman (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)